Seven Billion Humans & Counting – Why Marriage Not Necessary

[RedRojasParticipant 559]

Hi Bros!

I’ve been watching a ton of MGTOW videos off Youtube. While they give a whole lot of great reasons to never get married, I haven’t encountered one which took the entire macroscopic approach of humans as a species. For instance, we know that the purpose of marriage was to create an environment which best facilitates the siring of offspring, and as a cultural tool to socially condition said offspring to orient them to the larger society. Upon further reflection, it has come to my attention that we humans on a macroscopic level have gotten to number in the billions. As a result of this, I assume that our drive to marry and sire offspring is purely a biochemical / emotional / animalistic urge. Take us MGTOW men for example, hypothetically if there were 100,000 – 1,000,000 MGTOW men who never married and had kids that wouldn’t even put a dent in the human population levels worldwide. Now marriage in this traditional sense had value only insofar as to bolster population levels when we needed more workers (think agrarian revolution / industrial revolution). So I got to thinking again -dangerous, I know- is MGTOW the sanest, least brutal method of population control? Also, in first-world countries with aging native populations, there are government sanctioned fertility programs being implemented with governments providing financial incentives for marriage/ procreation. I’ve noticed MGTOW throws a gigantic monkey wrench in this equation and am guessing as that is part of the reason we have been featured in the media recently. What do you guys think? Maybe the reason we get so much hate is because the MGTOW community is primarily men from first-world countries that are refusing to breed the next generation of serfs, i mean taxpayers?

Consistency is victory - Ultra Magnus

[Anonymous 11]

I agree we have too many people on the planet. One single Chad can father countless bastards though. Eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap.

MGTOW will make it much more difficult for them to continue being the abrasive c~~~s they are. All we have to do is take enough men out of the dating pool to get them thinking they will have a good shot at being some crazy cat lady spinster.

[Anonymous 42]

Feminism has solved that with declining birthrates throughout the Western world, Mohammad will have plenty of room to expand with their birthrates.

One way or another nature seeks equality, and for 151 years equality has been tossed out the window in favor of FEMALE INSANITY!

Plenty of room here in B.C.F.C, if an extremist rebel group of some kind were to establish itself here, after what I’ve seen I would look the other way and walk the other way, I have no lawful and legitimate place in a society that treats men like a pile of steaming s~~~! FOAD!

Absolutly no f~~~s given for any of it, let them kill each other, it’s my mission to stay out of the way and be the disposable garbage my this nation says and dictates by law that I am.

LTMFB!

[MeisterParticipant 2093]

There is no “we” and I don’t give a f~~~ whether there are too many people on this planet or not.

This is all part of the socially engineered hivemind.

In theory a healthy union with man+wife+kids provides the foundation for a free society.

But the powers in charge have manipulated the stupid masses into various delusions like feminism and socialism.

That way they have eroded the family union and eventually children will be raised by the regime. They will grow up to be willing slaves to their global masters.

I see no possible positive outcome and the only sane thing to do is just to go your own way.

Monk

[SmeeParticipant 228]

There is something here that I seem to have upside down – unless of course I’m correct and you all have been missing the point.

We keep hearing about what the Femitheist Divine, you know, the one Karen Straughan discussed in terms of neotony, Krista Millburn.

I’ve heard it discussed Krista is in fact an MRA and we have taken what she said incorrectly, as it was satire.

However, regardless, there have been several historical feminist idols, who have proposed the same ideas.

Anyway, just to cover the basic standard tenet – we euthenise 90% of men and use the other 10% as work/breeding stock. This is how we control the world population, amongst other things.

Now this is where I cannot see the logic.

If you drop men to 10%, they can still impregnate 100% of the women, your problem is now about how you control women and their needs (Baby Rabies). If women cannot control those, then you get little or no benefit.

NOW I AM NOT PROPOSING THIS MYSELF, BUT IT MAKES MORE LOGICAL SENSE AS FOLLOWS.

You drop women to 10% and the effect is an immediate fall in the future population regardless of what anyone does. There is no need to control women or mens needs as the numbers and biology will do the work.

The percentage could be nearer 50% and you’d still have a huge effect.

So you euthanise way less people and actually achieve your aims, win win !!!!

You could not euthanise any women and maybe just give them all hysterectomies at age 25 or some such.

Just expanding on a feminist theory about controlling the population, no hate, less euthanasia and maybe even an increase number of jobs for the Doctors and Nurses required – ROFLMAO.

Let me know, am I wrong ?
Where is the logic flawed ?
Educate me please – I like to learn.

This theory is mine and I want to claim Copyright.

In future this must be known as ‘Smees Law’, the correct and logical proposal for the control of the growth of the human species.

I may get egg on my face if you prove me wrong, but I can’t see the error ?

Now, how do we get a law like this enacted ………..

Smee Again

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

I’m sure no one ever thunk of that before. Your trademark stands.

Don’t ever be fooled 10% male population by government funded abortion clinics where women can decide in private what gender will survive. Constitution protected, national guard enforced private genderside factories.

If women chose to use them that way and AWALT eventually.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[SmeeParticipant 228]

Hi Puffin Stuff,
but if women did that – all they’d be doing is increasing the breeding stock of females – who grow up to have baby rabies and demand their right to have a child.

The fact that as you suggest, they may decide to abort all males makes no difference to the numbers, it actually aggravates them

Smee Again

[Puffin StuffParticipant 24979]

I believe a significant portion of the female population agrees with decreasing the male population.

Would it work. Of course not but decreasing the male population is a tenet of feminism like freedom of speech is a tenet of our constitution.

They all strive for it. And when they do have male children they try to turn them into girls. It’s disgusting.

#icethemout; Remember Thomas Ball. He died for your children.

[SmeeParticipant 228]

Hi Puffin,
I have to agree.

My post was only to point to the logical fallacy of the assumption oft quoted that reduction of men will reduce the population.

Smee Again

[AntipathyParticipant 4901]

Whenever this topic is raised, just think of the last time you were running late to work, or a meeting, or an interview. Then think of the endless line of cars ahead of you.

I think the world has more than enough people.

[narwhalParticipant]

Smee, the problem with your theory is that you’re solving the wrong problem. Feminism is not concerned with population control, only female dominance. In order for that to happen, you need a much larger population of women in order to overpower and control the male population. In your scenario, men would most like start controlling women in order to control the birthrate.

Meister wrote:

In theory a healthy union with man+wife+kids provides the foundation for a free society.
But the powers in charge have manipulated the stupid masses into various delusions like feminism and socialism.

Agreed. Marriage has never been about population control, it was created to form a stable societal structure. Besides the fact that the structure is evaporating, you could make the argument that it’s no longer need as much. Unfortunately, it looks like we will definitely be testing that argument.

Population control isn’t just about numbers, but about quality of life. Statics have shown that women were happier, had a better quality of life when men were in control

Ok. Then do it.

[SmeeParticipant 228]

Point taken Narwhal,
I was mocking the standard tenet proposed, maybe my humour is too dry.

To say you control the population by reducing men is stupid today.

Historically we have set society to protect women so we could sustain our species.

Let the men die and keep the women because we can recover from that scenario.

Today the opposite applies. We no longer need to keep the numbers up, we really want a decline.

Smee Again

[Nathan R. JessepParticipant 1102]

Why would women get rid of men? They love the attention and money they get from them. If anything they would want to reduce the female population more into to increase the value of the pussy.

[RedRojasParticipant 559]

Nathan R. Jessep wrote:

They love the attention and money they get from them. If anything they would want to reduce the female population more into to increase the value of the pussy.

Haven’t thought of that angle. A true capitalistic approach!

Consistency is victory - Ultra Magnus

[Author]

Posts